AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Attorney(S)
Judges

    Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Divya Enterprises Ltd. .

    Order

    1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

    2. We have seen Notification No. 65 of 1987 dated 1-3-1987. In our view the interpretation given by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The impugned order must be and is, therefore, set aside.

    3. Under this notification terry towelling was exempted. However, the terry-towelling fabric was not exempted. The respondents have paid duty on the exempted item i.e on towels but duty has not been paid on the fabric. As the notification does not exempt fabrics, duty has to be paid on the fabric under Sub-Heading 5802.12 We, however, direct that the respondent will be given adjustment for the duty paid on the towels. If on calculation of duty, it is found that a higher amount has been paid than what is due on the fabric, then the claim for refund will be allowed. If on the other hand it is found that some duty has still to be paid then the respondent shall pay the duty.

    4. We clarify that this order is applicable only for the period of the notification and not for any other period.

    5. Appeal stands disposed of.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Collector Of Central Excise, Hyderabad v. Divya Enterprises Ltd. .
    (Mar 5, 2003)